Side bar with the court reporter, please.

Let's see. 13.

Yes.

Navy blue.

The testimony is an offer of proof Mazzola testified, and Fung, that everything except for items 15 and 16 were picked up sequentially, sequentially in order. They wrote them down. The time was between 4:40--because they were picked up downstairs where the foyer is, 4:30, and then they went upstairs. They went upstairs together. And then item 14, your Honor, was picked up, the bloodstain, or something like that, in the bathroom, was picked up at 4:40. And it was between those times, I want to bring that out, and in fact I want to be able to show a video of Mazzola's testimony and also I can show you Fung's testimony. We have done this before. And I should be able to ask him whether or not--this is the issue of whether or not at this particular time, between 4:30 and 4:40--they have their testimony. They have already testified before the Court. This is nothing I'm making up. And this backs it up, because Peter Neufeld--I will show you the transcript. Peter Neufeld asked her sequentially--

No, I am with you. How are you going to ask this witness?

I don't think that is a proper question.

Why is that not a proper question?

He has testified he hasn't talked to her, he hasn't discussed it with her and has no knowledge of what the testimony is.

And this is not his log, okay, and so we are giving this witness someone else's log.

We have used these logs all the time. If he has seen this log--

But Johnnie, wait a minute. Ask this guy are you aware of this testimony and to play it is to say--all it is is argument. That what it is. It is not a proper question at this time.

Well, I respectfully disagree with that, your Honor. The Prosecution has done this all the time.

Like what?

Kelberg asked every witness, you know, what Dr. Lakshmanan said over here and so and so, but putting hypotheticals before the witness.

Those are expert witnesses. This guy is not testifying as an expert.

I think that this man says that they looked at TV, I think I should have a right, if he has ever seen the log--

You can ask him if he has seen it.

Thank you. I want to ask you then, if he has seen the log, then I can ask him based upon this log he saw some other log at the time?

All right. I'm sustaining the initial objection that it is--what you are planning to do is argument at this point.

Right.

Because it is already in the record what Mazzola and Fung testified to. You can ask him if he has seen this log and knows.

Guidance from the Court. Can I ask this man if he is aware--can I ask him these questions? Are you aware that Andrea Mazzola testified under oath that these socks were picked up between 4:30 and 4:40 and information was kept on the log sequentially except items 15 and 16, you know?

You can ask him--you can ask him did you discuss this with Andrea Mazzola? Did you watch her testimony? Are you aware of her testimony? You can't lead into all the other things that she testified to without a foundation.

Okay. And he can't add into that times and things like that.

Can we have--may I confer for one second?

This possibility, your Honor. My learned colleague informs me that why can't we ask him to look at the testimony of Andrea Mazzola and ask him if she so testified would she be correct and would she be wrong? They have done this with other witnesses. If she testified and she picked these things up between 4:30 and 4:40 after he had left, after he had taken this video, would she be correct or would she be lying?

No, we have not. In fact, there were some rare attempts, I think on both sides, to introduce testimony that way and each time the objections were sustained. I mean, come on, we all went to law school. We know this is improper, your Honor.

You can ask him if he is familiar with the log. You can ask him if he has discussed the testimony of Mazzola or if he is aware of her testimony, but without any other foundation I'm not going to let you go into any of this now.